[immibis]

What does that even mean? If you do something the USA doesn't like, you get nuked (metaphorically or literally). That is how it is, court or no court. What good is a group that pretends to be "real representation of international community" if the USA can still override it with nukes?

The UN veto attempts to at least make the process transparent. A veto is like a promise "we will drop nukes on you if you try this, so don't." It's much better to find out that way, than to find out by having a nuclear bomb dropped on your head from a military jet.

[bluish29]

Unless of course the US is talking about another countries with nukes themselves. But you are making a good case for why it is in each country best interest to acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea appears, in your argument, one of the wisest regimes in the world.

I'm pretty sure that when US is vetoing Russia, it does not mean "we will drop nukes on you if you try this, so don't". Because Russian response will be of the sort "Great, try this and enjoy the fireworks over your population centers, we will hate to see the UN gone with the whole of New York".

[immibis]

Russia also has a veto. Either one can threaten the nukes to block a proposal.

A neutral order where nobody has nukes would be better than one where everyone has nukes. You probably can't get from here to there without the complete destruction of the US state apparatus along the way, though. The Russian one too. And every other major player.